Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

But it isn't.
Rick Perry specifically target Californian business, both directly and through a pretty big public ad campaign, and he's doing it to New York state.

So it's just a problem that he's advertising and openly stating his desire to draw businesses to Texas?

 

[Black Mamba]

So it's just a problem that he's advertising and openly stating his desire to draw businesses to Texas?

That and they're changing their tax policies strictly to convince these companies to come.

All you're doing is increasing profit margins at the expense of other people just so you can score political points.

While I'm not necessarily opposed to a state having their own tax policies, I think a state shouldn't be in the business of creating tax policies to poach companies away from other states.

States really shouldn't be competing with one another. It's not the 1800s anymore. The end result is simply hurting people for a dumb reason.

 

[benjipwns]

But isn't that acting in favor of their constituents?

I mean, yes, obviously they're doing targeted tax breaks and crap, but if we just assume for the sake of argument that for their own reasons for their own businesses Texas has setup a regime which is extraordinarily businesses friendly.

Should something be done to prevent this? Or to prevent them from advertising the status of their laws?

Couldn't New York or somebody start advertising about the benefits of gay and womens rights in their state, and gun control, or whatever workers support they have over other states? Would this necessarily be any different?

 

[Black Mamba]

But isn't that acting in favor of their constituents?

I mean, yes, obviously they're doing targeted tax breaks and crap, but if we just assume for the sake of argument that for their own reasons for their own businesses Texas has setup a regime which is extraordinarily businesses friendly.

Everyone's "constituents" should be the entire US. The idea that a Texas governor should make another state worse so that the one he runs is better is the problem. The entire concept shouldn't really exist.

Should something be done to prevent this? Or to prevent them from advertising the status of their laws?

Couldn't New York or somebody start advertising about the benefits of gay and womens rights in their state, and gun control, or whatever workers support they have over other states? Would this necessarily be any different?

I don't think something should necessarily be done about it, I just think it should be something that isn't done. The idea that states are at competition with one another is stupid and should go away. It is a relic of a time from the North vs South and stuff. We should look at each other as the same.

I don't think New York has to advertise that it's more tolerant of homosexuality. In this day and age, a homosexual is aware of it without advertising. And those are societal things, not economic per se. And of course, no one is actually hurt because New York is more friendly to homosexuals. There's no race to the bottom (it's the opposite in this case!). All those other things brought up fall under the same thing, though I get your point. I'd make the same argument i a state advertised "Hey, our minimum wage is higher" as well.

 

[Piecake]

But isn't that acting in favor of their constituents?

I mean, yes, obviously they're doing targeted tax breaks and crap, but if we just assume for the sake of argument that for their own reasons for their own businesses Texas has setup a regime which is extraordinarily businesses friendly.

Should something be done to prevent this? Or to prevent them from advertising the status of their laws?

Couldn't New York or somebody start advertising about the benefits of gay and womens rights in their state, and gun control, or whatever workers support they have over other states? Would this necessarily be any different?

One harms the nation on the whole and the other does not. Texas isn't enticing any business from the superiority of their services that they provide to their citizens. They are enticing them through tax breaks. The result of this is no net jobs created and less tax revenue for the United States. It also means that other states will be compelled to offer tax breaks, lower tax rates and other things for businesses to entice them. Its a race to the bottom and the result of that is that it hurts the citizens who are struggling the most because government provided services are sacrificed for those tax breaks.

That is not something that we should encourage. We should definitely encourage a system where businesses want to go to the states that have the best infrastructure, education, healthcare, rights, etc because that will benefit the American people because it will result in other states competing to provide those services instead of competing to cut them.

 

[Black Mamba]

Well, I guess one way you could solve this is remove the right of States to tax people.

All taxes are federal and the federal government gives the states the money and allows it to allocate as it wishes.

 

[benjipwns]

Leaving aside that the Texas Governor is like the seventh most powerful person in the state, he's not elected by anyone outside the state he "runs" so what's his interest in trying to figure out what's "best" for the whole United States until he launches a Presidential campaign?

Just condemnation is of course always fine, I was just wondering if there was something beyond that to tease out, while also stopping short of EV's position in favor of eliminating local autonomy.

One harms the nation on the whole and the other does not. Texas isn't enticing any business from the superiority of their services that they provide to their citizens. They are enticing them through tax breaks.

Right, but I'm saying, assume for the sake of argument that it's merely that Texas for whatever reason (could be taxes, could be the Dallas Mavericks, whatever) is more enticing to businesses, like California once was, what could or rather would you do to stop migration to the state from the others? Anything other than centralizing even more powers into the federal government?

 

[Piecake]

Leaving aside that the Texas Governor is like the seventh most powerful person in the state, he's not elected by anyone outside the state he "runs" so what's his interest in trying to figure out what's "best" for the whole United States until he launches a Presidential campaign?

Just condemnation is of course always fine, I was just wondering if there was something beyond that to tease out, while also stopping short of EV's position in favor of eliminating local autonomy.

You are treating local autonomy like its a thing worth protecting in all instances. In this, I definitely don't think it is. Corporations simply have too much leverage when they are dealing with multiple states who are trying to woo them into setting up shop in their state.

Right, but I'm saying, assume for the sake of argument that it's merely that Texas for whatever reason (could be taxes, could be the Dallas Mavericks, whatever) is more enticing to businesses, like California once was, what could or rather would you do to stop migration to the state from the others? Anything other than centralizing even more powers into the federal government?

Well, if you don't want to eliminate the state's right to set their own business tax rate, just make it illegal for State's to offer special tax deals and privelages to individual businesses. Re-characterize that as a bribe. I definitely don't think that will solve the race to the bottom phenomenon, but I think it would help.

 

[Black Mamba]

Leaving aside that the Texas Governor is like the seventh most powerful person in the state, he's not elected by anyone outside the state he "runs" so what's his interest in trying to figure out what's "best" for the whole United States until he launches a Presidential campaign?

Just condemnation is of course always fine, I was just wondering if there was something beyond that to tease out, while also stopping short of EV's position in favor of eliminating local autonomy.

A governor shouldn't look at another state's people as less important. This process of thought is a relic of a past that is no longer applicable.

I think it makes everyone in the country worse off, in general, when our states are competing with one another. I'm not saying localities shouldn't have their own rules and stuff, but the concept that taking from one state to benefit another should be done away with. it's a bad idea.

 

[Chichikov]

So it's just a problem that he's advertising and openly stating his desire to draw businesses to Texas?

The problem is that this type of competition between states does not benefit the United States as a whole.
Are we really that partisan that we're willing actively fight to take away jobs from states we disagree with politically?

Rick Perry should strive to create new American jobs, not move them around.

 

[benjipwns]

A governor shouldn't look at another state's people as less important. This process of thought is a relic of a past that is no longer applicable.

Well there's plenty of things I can say that a governor or senator or president should and shouldn't do, but my condemnation never seems to change their behavior of catering to whoever gets them in power for some strange reason I can never find out.

You are treating local autonomy like its a thing worth protecting in all instances. In this, I definitely don't think it is. Corporations simply have too much leverage when they are dealing with multiple states who are trying to woo them into setting up shop in their state.

So should there be a global governing board that decides where corporations can and can't do business?

Why is the local autonomy of the United States more worth protecting than either the U.S. states or cities or the entire planet?

 

[Black Mamba]

Well there's plenty of things I can say that a governor or senator or president should and shouldn't do, but my condemnation never seems to change their behavior of catering to whoever gets them in power for some strange reason I can never find out.

I don't see how this is an argument against what I've said. I know why they do it, I just think it's stupid.

And it's also a cultural thing. It's not like it has to be this way.

Why is the local autonomy of the United States more worth protecting than either the U.S. states or cities or the entire planet?

It's not, but we can only work within the constructs given at this time.

 

[Jack Remington]

I can see the argument that capital moving around could be a good thing if it resulted in capital being correctly allocated to economic climates that were most conducive to overall economic growth.

I don't think that's the case when capital moves to states/countries with the worst conditions for workers.

Far better would be investments that create more total economic activity in the form of entirely new businesses.


On a side note, we really need to iron out the kinks with the current incarnation of capitalism and figure out a way to get it running more smoothly. There is so much accumulated capital out there that the people holding it don't even know what to do with it, and yet millions of people sit idle.

I'm wondering if it's a problem inherent to the system or if there's some bottleneck in the system preventing the economy from running at its maximum potential. Could it be energy? I wonder.

The right would say it's government regulation, minimum wage, etc, but I really don't think the problem is that we need to make the majority of our population even poorer in order to unleash the full potential of human productivity.

 

[Chichikov]

I can see the argument that capital moving around could be a good thing if it resulted in capital being correctly allocated to economic climates that were most conducive to overall economic growth.

I don't think that's the case when capital moves to states/countries with the worst conditions for workers.

Far better would be investments that create more total economic activity in the form of entirely new businesses.


On a side note, we really need to iron out the kinks with the current incarnation of capitalism and figure out a way to get it running more smoothly. There is so much accumulated capital out there that the people holding it don't even know what to do with it, and yet millions of people sit idle.

I'm wondering if it's a problem inherent to the system or if there's some bottleneck in the system preventing the economy from running at its maximum potential. Could it be energy? I wonder.

The right would say it's government regulation, minimum wage, etc, but I really don't think the problem is that we need to make the majority of our population even poorer in order to unleash the full potential of human productivity.

You should read Capital in the Twenty First Century.
Fuck, ya'll should be reading it.

Edit: not to sound mysterious and shit, the book claim, very persuasively, that there is no inequality equilibrium (of at the very least that it's at a super high levels) and that the very system creates very strong divergent forces that unless counteracted by strong government action (or another World War) would lead to pretty terrible results.
And for real, go read it, it's one of the most important books written in recent years, and while it deals with pretty technical stuff, it does it in a very approachable and readable way.

 

[Black Mamba]

You should read Capital in the Twenty First Century.
Fuck, ya'll should be reading it.

Edit: not to sound mysterious and shit, the book claim, very persuasively, that there is no inequality equilibrium (of at the very least that it's at a super high levels) and that the very system creates very strong divergent forces that unless counteracted by strong government action (or another World War) would lead pretty terrible results.
And for real, go read it, it's one of the most important books written in recent years, and while it deals with pretty technical stuff, it does it in a very approachable and readable way.

It just came out, no? I've been hearing about it.

Made me look at the negative comments though, for what I expected to be lulz. lulz have been had:

This book is socialist propaganda and the only people who'll win if Americans accept the recipes offered by this book are the Russians. Russia will be the superpower of the 21 century if Americans become just like Europeans who are taxed to death and have no ambition. I want Russia to succeed, which means I want America to become like Europe.

Please do what Piketty says! Please! The world is tired of a strong America!

don't waste your money, don't waste your time...this book is for left wing commies who never earned a dime.....not worth the paper it's printed on

I've always been amazed by the tendency of certain losers to cling to an ideology that not only impoverished every nation where it held sway but, as a side benefit, murdered 100 million people last century. How could anyone be so stupid as to still believe in such a failed religion? Even an LSD addict on a bad trip and suffering through hallucinations would be more rational than the nutcases who buy this book.

Hark! I spot a troll!

Piketty attempts to show the inefficiencies of free markets. But this has already been explained by Adam Smith, Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman and the like. Of course government aid for the rich is called "security," "subsidies," "money grants," or "tax breaks," while aid for the poor is called "welfare." And anyone who reads and understands Adam Smith know that he predicted the savageries of so-called free markets in the 18th century: "Merchants and manufacturers design policy to serve their own particular interests no matter how grievous its effects on the people of England and the savagery of the Europeans (in India)."

The true thinkers are men like Friedman and Saint Alan Greenspan who look beyond the inefficiencies of the "free" markets and exploit the inefficiencies to maximize gain for the super rich in our really existing State capitalism economy. You would never hear Saint Alan use a socialist term like "corporate welfare," even after the Government bailed out all of the banks and corporations. That would be irrational. That would not be serving Saint Alan's own particular interests no matter the consequences. The top corporations are making record profits again! So much money that the CEOs of Goldman Sachs and the like don't know what to do with all of the money.

Piketty is just part of the 99% who has an irrational hatred of the great Ronald Reagan, and doesn't have the patience for the wealth to trickle down to him. Avoid Piketty's irrational thinking at all costs. Piketty believes in writing about facts, the truth about so-called free markets, and actual consequences that result from the inequality of wealth. This is a dangerous manifesto America. Don't believe the facts, don't believe that there is the fantasy of capitalism that people in power like to preach about and then there is Really Existing Capitalism with State policies promoting competition among the poor and welfare for the rich. It's not like we can do anything about it anyway. Anyone below the top 10% of wealth has little-to-zero influence on decisionmakers and policies in the USA so we might as play our violins as our ship sinks. Saint Alan would agree.

 

[benjipwns]

I should probably start a thread about it; alas, I'm a stricken with laziness

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=791768

 

[Chichikov]

It just came out, no? I've been hearing about it.

Made me look at the negative comments though, for what I expected to be lulz. lulz have been had:

Hark! I spot a troll!

The English version just came out, yes.
And LOL at the comments, obviously idiots who never read the book.
They be scared, yo.

And for real, you guys should read it, it's an important book, and it's kinda cool to read an important book in real time (also it has graphs that will win you many internet arguments!).

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=791768

I'm also too lazy to search.
The welfare state made me so.

 

[Oblivion]

You should read Capital in the Twenty First Century.
Fuck, ya'll should be reading it.

I've been hearing about it, but what makes it so good?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=791768

Just one page? Welp, guess the free market has spoken and thus the book is an official failure.

 

[Oblivion]

https://twitter.com/Pontifex/status/460697074585980928

For some reason, when Limbaugh commanded the Pope to STFU about that whole social justice thing, the Pope decided to continue with his blasphemy.

 

[Chichikov]

I've been hearing about it, but what makes it so good?

First of all, I have not yet finished the book, and if the last couple of chapters are all Marx and Engels erotic slash fiction, I'll might have to revise my opinion

Spoiler

upward

.
With that being said, the book is based on unprecedented research of inequality, both historically and globally, and he use that pretty newly complied data to back up all of his claims, and he does it in a very clear simple language anyone can easily follow.
And by the way, the people who try to paint him as some crazy communists clearly didn't read the book (or are intentionally misleading the public).
He's not advocating any of this.

 

[codhand]

America

It's....it's... beautiful.

 

[Joe Molotov]

America

It's....it's... beautiful.

How badly we need a Washington...a Lincoln...a Reagan...

 

[Piecake]

So should there be a global governing board that decides where corporations can and can't do business?

Why is the local autonomy of the United States more worth protecting than either the U.S. states or cities or the entire planet?

I honestly don't know where you got this from anything that I said. Are you purposely trying to make a strawman argument? I specifically said in this instance, meaning taxes. It should be obvious from what we have been arguing about why state and city autonomy is not good in this regard.

 

[PhoenixDark]

A governor shouldn't look at another state's people as less important. This process of thought is a relic of a past that is no longer applicable.

I think it makes everyone in the country worse off, in general, when our states are competing with one another. I'm not saying localities shouldn't have their own rules and stuff, but the concept that taking from one state to benefit another should be done away with. it's a bad idea.

When did Perry say the people of California are less important? Also governors compete with each other all the time, Perry has simply been more open about it. And it seems to be working. I wish we had a president as laser focused on jobs as Perry is. With less right wing extremism of course.

 

[benjipwns]

I honestly don't know where you got this from anything that I said. Are you purposely trying to make a strawman argument? I specifically said in this instance, meaning taxes. It should be obvious from what we have been arguing about why state and city autonomy is not good in this regard.

So should states not be allowed to set their own tax rates because it might be advantageous to them vs. other states?

Why is it a strawman to suggest a global body to solve this problem of local autonomy being abused to the advantage of one location?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I can see the argument that capital moving around could be a good thing if it resulted in capital being correctly allocated to economic climates that were most conducive to overall economic growth.

I don't think that's the case when capital moves to states/countries with the worst conditions for workers.

Far better would be investments that create more total economic activity in the form of entirely new businesses.


On a side note, we really need to iron out the kinks with the current incarnation of capitalism and figure out a way to get it running more smoothly. There is so much accumulated capital out there that the people holding it don't even know what to do with it, and yet millions of people sit idle.

I'm wondering if it's a problem inherent to the system or if there's some bottleneck in the system preventing the economy from running at its maximum potential. Could it be energy? I wonder.

The right would say it's government regulation, minimum wage, etc, but I really don't think the problem is that we need to make the majority of our population even poorer in order to unleash the full potential of human productivity.

Tax it. That gets it moving

So should states not be allowed to set their own tax rates because it might be advantageous to them vs. other states?

Why is it a strawman to suggest a global body to solve this problem of local autonomy being abused to the advantage of one location?

There should be certain bounds set. Hell, even the founders set some limits on competition with the banning of tariffs on internal commerce.

I don't think people have a problem with companies moving. Its the use of a tax code as a pseudo tariff. We can limit certain behavior. And its a strawman because Nation states are the highest Sovereign power.

I'd also say there is a large amount of difference between say attracting business with an educated labor force, environmental policy, good schools, human rights with outright bribes which is what perry is doing.

 

[RustyNails]

So will Grimm from New York's 11th be a pick-up? Is a guy with a 20 count indictment really gonna win?

Very easy pickup. Just hope the Democrat candidate wont do something stupid like tweet dickpics.

 

[benjipwns]

There should be certain bounds set. Hell, even the founders set some limits on competition with the banning of tariffs on internal commerce.

I don't think people have a problem with companies moving. Its the use of a tax code as a pseudo tariff. We can limit certain behavior. And its a strawman because Nation states are the highest Sovereign power.

I'd also say there is a large amount of difference between say attracting business with an educated labor force, environmental policy, good schools, human rights with outright bribes which is what perry is doing.

And when other nation states do it, what about the American workers who would lose their jobs? Why shouldn't we prevent other nations from poaching our jobs in a race to the bottom by setting global bounds and limiting certain behavior? Why is it only a problem when non-nationstates bribe companies?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

And when other nation states do it, what about the American workers who would lose their jobs? Why shouldn't we prevent other nations from poaching our jobs in a race to the bottom by setting global bounds and limiting certain behavior? Why is it only a problem when non-nationstates bribe companies?

I don't think its good but we can't do anything about other nations. Its a strawman because we have no control over the policy of China or Brazil. That being said we should try to negotiate so this thing is less prevalent.

Why are you changing the debate anyways?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

There are some boundaries, in the form of tariffs, that do protect American jobs to an extent. The amount that these have been chiseled away at, with NAFTA and other policies, has indeed hurt the American worker.

 

[benjipwns]

Why are you changing the debate anyways?

How am I changing the debate?

 

[empty vessel]

Right, but I'm saying, assume for the sake of argument that it's merely that Texas for whatever reason (could be taxes, could be the Dallas Mavericks, whatever) is more enticing to businesses, like California once was, what could or rather would you do to stop migration to the state from the others? Anything other than centralizing even more powers into the federal government?

It's not about stopping migration within a nation state. Migration is fine if one location within the nation state is more suitable to a business than another. It's about removing leverage from businesses to dictate government policy. As I'm sure we all agree, policy should be set democratically based upon what is deemed best for the collective welfare. What level of taxation and what regulations exist should be set based on what is ideal for the public, not based on what is necessary to lure businesses to move from one location to another. The latter only leads to better and better deals for business, which is not coextensive with (and often opposite to) what is good for the public as a whole. At least so says Adam Smith.

 

[Joe Molotov]

Very easy pickup. Just hope the Democrat candidate wont do something stupid like dropping out of the race after tweeting dickpics.

FTFY

 

[NYCmetsfan]

How am I changing the debate?

Because this started out as a discussion of interstate taxes and you are now focusing on foreign countries like they have any relevance on the decision to shift a HQ from cali to texas

 

[benjipwns]

As I'm sure we all agree, policy should be set democratically based upon what is deemed best for the collective welfare. What level of taxation and what regulations exist should be set based on what is ideal for the public

Isn't this what the people of Texas have democratically decided is best for their collective welfare?

Because this started out as a discussion of interstate taxes and you are now focusing on foreign countries like they have any relevance on the decision to shift a HQ from cali to texas

Because I don't understand the arbitrary distinction between one set of borders and another. You seem to be saying it's merely practical concerns? Assume those away and it would be great to have a global body that works to set bounds preventing a race to the bottom, no?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Because I don't understand the arbitrary distinction between one set of borders and another. You seem to be saying it's merely practical concerns? Assume those away and it would be great to have a global body that works to set bounds preventing a race to the bottom, no?

You really can't tell the difference between states and countries? Something tells me your being purposefully daft.

I'm not entertaining philosophical ideas about a world government of 180 countries. Its tangential and distracting.

 

[kehs]

Isn't this what the people of Texas have democratically decided is best for their collective welfare?


Because I don't understand the arbitrary distinction between one set of borders and another. You seem to be saying it's merely practical concerns? Assume those away and it would be great to have a global body that works to set bounds preventing a race to the bottom, no?

You're saying state and national borders should be treated the same?

 

[empty vessel]

Isn't this what the people of Texas have democratically decided is best for their collective welfare?

No, it set policy based on what it would take to lure Toyota to move to Texas from California. If it did not feel compelled to do this, it may find different policy preferable. What is good policy for business (and thus what is necessary to lure them) is not necessarily good policy for the public. Do you disagree with that? Do you think that the interests of business are in exact alignment with the interests of the public? Adam Smith said that that the interests of business are "never exactly the same with that of the public" (emphasis mine).

 

[NYCmetsfan]

No, it set policy based on what it would take to lure Toyota to move to Texas from California. If it did not feel compelled to do this, it may find different policy preferable. What is good policy for business (and thus what is necessary to lure them) is not necessarily good policy for the public. Do you disagree with that? Do you think that the interests of business are in exact alignment with the interests of the public? Adam Smith said that that the interests of business are "never exactly the same with that of the public" (emphasis mine).

He's a little less firm in context

The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

But yeah Smith saw the effects of businesses dictating policy

 

[benjipwns]

You really can't tell the difference between states and countries. Something tells me your being purposefully daft.

I'm not entertaining philosophical ideas about a world government of 180 countries. Its tangential and distracting.

It's tangential and distracting to address the supposed "problem"?

Why should I care about Houston bribing jobs away from Detroit or Texas bribing jobs away from California but not care about the United States bribing jobs away from France? If I shouldn't care about French workers or what the United States does to attract jobs why should I care about Californian workers or what Texas does?

I mean, is not the position that Texas is doing something wrong premised on the same idea that those jobs belong to California as much as the jobs belong to America or France or wherever? If the mobility of jobs and companies is wrong in one instance, why is it not wrong in all instances? If deliberately altering policy to attract jobs for your constituents is wrong in one instance, why is it not wrong in all instances?

Why is preference for America something to be seek, but preference for Texas or your city outdated, wrong and a problem to fix?

And what about a world government of 50 countries?

No, it set policy based on what it would take to lure Toyota to move to Texas from California.

Creating jobs for the constituents in Texas, which we should assume they support right? Or are these democratic decisions somehow invalid because the people who now get to work at Toyota in Texas aren't taking into consideration some larger public interest?

 

[empty vessel]

He's a little less firm in context

I wasn't suggesting that he said policy proposals coming from business interests ought never be adopted. He said that business interests are never exactly aligned with the public. Benjipwns's argument assumes that business interests are always aligned exactly with public. So he's taking a position that is effectively completely opposite to Smith. That's fine, of course. There is no reason to believe that Smith is god (and of course he was not), but I think he should reflect on whether he truly believes that the interests of business and the public are one and the same.

 

[benjipwns]

Benjipwns's argument assumes that business interests are always aligned exactly with public.

No, it doesn't.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Obama's approval down to 41 in latest ABC poll, a new low. Good luck in November.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

It's tangential and distracting to address the supposed "problem"?

Why should I care about Houston bribing jobs away from Detroit or Texas bribing jobs away from California but not care about the United States bribing jobs away from France? If I shouldn't care about French workers or what the United States does to attract jobs why should I care about Californian workers or what Texas does?

I mean, is not the position that Texas is doing something wrong premised on the same idea that those jobs belong to California as much as the jobs belong to America or France or wherever? If the mobility of jobs and companies is wrong in one instance, why is it not wrong in all instances? If deliberately altering policy to attract jobs for your constituents is wrong in one instance, why is it not wrong in all instances?

Why is preference for America something to be seek, but preference for Texas or your city outdated, wrong and a problem to fix?

And what about a world government of 50 countries?

Because you're attempting to discuss what you want to discuss not what was being discussed.

People in this thread were talking about federalism and how we prevent a race to the bottom within the US. You decided to shift it to worldwide racing to the bottom I presume because you can't argue with the propositions being offered on that argument so you shift it to where you can continue it and not concede anything. Its the same thing with people who claim we can't fix everything so why try anything!

You keep pretending that there is no difference between countries and states. Nobody is saying we shouldn't care or that it isn't a problem in the world wide contex but we're trying to prevent one (job poaching within our country) the other is still an issue but not related to the other. Toyota needs to have a US HQ.

If your gonna keep pretending we're saying something else and put up strawman the conversation is fruitless. You've already continually ignored the distinction between states and nation states and continually asked questions like this distinction doesn't matter.

 

[benjipwns]

How does it matter?

 

[empty vessel]

Creating jobs for the constituents in Texas, which we should assume they support right? Or are these democratic decisions somehow invalid because the people who now get to work at Toyota in Texas aren't taking into consideration some larger public interest?

I'm sure Texans want jobs. I'm sure they want good regulations, too. And sufficient funding for their schools and government programs. However, it doesn't make sense to look at this from the perspective of Texans, unless you think that Americans should not be united or act as a political unit. Because I think we should act that way, it is best to ask whether creating jobs for the constituents of the US is something Americans would support. And it obviously is, but (1) no net jobs were created for Americans; and (2) the ensuing deregulation and net decrease in local government spending will make the public worse off.

In any event, maximizing the number of jobs is not per se in the public interest. More nuance is needed. I mean, slavery is a job, right? We could pass laws requiring everybody to work for free, and everybody would have a job, but a pretty shit life.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Obama's approval down to 41 in latest ABC poll, a new low. Good luck in November.

Seems like an outlier. Haven't all the other polls shown an improvement. Anyways that poll shows the real problem. The dem base is gonna sit on their asses again.

 

[The Technomancer]

In any event, maximizing the number of jobs is not per se in the public interest. More nuance is needed. I mean, slavery is a job, right? We could pass laws requiring everybody to work for free, and everybody would have a job, but a pretty shit life.

This is something I always try to get across. There's nothing intrinsically virtuous about "having a job". The worth of employment is in how it allows you to sustain your life. A job at say, $3 an hour really isn't worth having just because "its a job"

 

[benjipwns]

However, it doesn't make sense to look at this from the perspective of Texans, unless you think that Americans should not be united or act as a political unit. Because I think we should act that way, it is best to ask whether creating jobs for the constituents of the US is something Americans would support.

Why doesn't it make sense to look at it from the perspective of those voters who are making democratic decisions?

Why do we get to skip their concerns, but not skip the concerns of Californians? Or the concerns of the US?

Isn't this just a form of forum shopping?

 

[empty vessel]

This is something I always try to get across. There's nothing intrinsically virtuous about "having a job". The worth of employment is in how it allows you to sustain your life. A job at say, $3 an hour really isn't worth having just because "its a job"

Right. What is in the public interest is having a job with decent pay with safe working conditions, safe consumer products, clean air and water, safe neighborhoods, good schools, health care, etc. Basically, a decent life. All of these things are in balance.

Why doesn't it make sense to look at it from the perspective of those voters who are making democratic decisions?

My whole position is that Texas should be abolished as an independent political subdivision. I don't see any good reason to subdivide a nation state and create needless tension, conflict, and competition between Americans. That's not to say that I think there should be no local say over local matters, but I think that can be retained in limited relevant spheres without federalism per se.

Why do we get to skip their concerns, but not skip the concerns of Californians? Or the concerns of the US?

We do not skip anybody's concerns. We act as one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We factor all concerns in and arrive at a policy that is best for all.

Isn't this just a form of forum shopping?

There should only be one forum.